DNA test rules out accused as father, Madhya Pradesh HC orders probe into minor’s sexual assault

What did the forensic DNA examination establish about the accused and the foetus?

The forensic DNA examination tested whether the accused was biologically related to the foetus. It excluded him as the foetus’s biological father. This was important because the investigation had linked him to the girl’s alleged assault and pregnancy. The result created a serious contradiction in the case record.

The foetus was preserved after the girl underwent termination of pregnancy. Investigators sent samples from the foetus, placenta tissue, and blood to the State Forensic Science Laboratory in Sagar. Its report, dated August 29, 2026, found that the accused was not the biological father.

The result did not resolve the entire case. The High Court noted that the girl was a minor and that material indicated sexual harassment. It ordered a fresh investigation to identify both the alleged assailant and the biological father, rather than treating the DNA finding as the final answer.

What is a DNA paternity test, and what does it prove?

A DNA paternity test is a genetic comparison between a child or foetus and a person alleged to be the father. People inherit DNA from their biological parents. By examining matching genetic markers, a laboratory can determine whether the tested man is the biological father or exclude him.

In this case, investigators tested material from the foetus, along with placenta tissue and blood, against the accused’s biological material. The forensic report concluded that he was not the biological father. That result answers a specific biological question: whether the accused fathered the foetus.

A paternity result has limits. It does not independently establish who sexually assaulted someone, whether force was used, or whether other offences occurred. It also does not identify the father unless investigators test possible individuals or otherwise gather evidence. The High Court therefore ordered further investigation instead of treating the result as a complete case resolution.

Why did the Madhya Pradesh High Court order a fresh investigation instead of simply ending the case?

The High Court ordered a fresh investigation because the forensic evidence created an unresolved conflict. The accused was excluded as the foetus’s father, yet the girl had initially alleged that he forcibly raped her. Her later testimony did not support the prosecution case. These facts required investigators to examine what actually happened.

The court directed the Chhatarpur Superintendent of Police to form a special team. That team must identify the person who allegedly sexually assaulted the minor and establish the foetus’s biological father. The DNA report answered only whether the accused fathered the foetus. It did not answer every question about the alleged assault.

The case therefore was not simply ended. Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari ordered the investigation completed within two months and appropriate action taken. The court also noted the girl’s minority and material suggesting sexual harassment, making a fuller investigation necessary despite the forensic contradiction.

Why did the DNA result not automatically entitle the accused to bail?

Bail is not the same as a final finding of innocence. A court deciding bail examines the available material, the seriousness of the allegations, and other legal concerns. It does not necessarily conduct the full trial or settle every disputed fact at that stage.

Here, the forensic report showed that the accused was not the foetus’s biological father. However, the High Court noted that the girl was 16 and that material before it indicated she had been subjected to sexual harassment. Her initial statements alleged forcible rape at Bageshwar Dham, even though she later did not support the prosecution case.

For those reasons, Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari dismissed the accused’s second bail application. The court treated the DNA result as a reason for a fresh investigation, not as automatic proof that bail must follow. It directed police to identify the alleged assailant and biological father within two months.

How long did the court give the police to identify the alleged assailant and the biological father?

The High Court set a clear two-month deadline for the renewed investigation. This means police must work within that period to clarify the central unanswered questions. The order covers both the alleged sexual assault and the foetus’s biological parentage.

Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari directed the Chhatarpur Superintendent of Police to constitute a special team. Its tasks are to identify the person who allegedly sexually assaulted the minor and establish who biologically fathered the foetus. The laboratory result had already excluded the accused from paternity, but it did not name another person.

The deadline also requires police to take appropriate action after completing the inquiry. It does not itself decide guilt or innocence. Instead, it pushes the investigation toward a clearer factual record, especially because the girl’s statements, the forensic report, and the prosecution theory did not align.

Why does the girl’s age—16—change the legal framework for the alleged sexual assault?

The girl’s age changes the legal framework because Indian law treats a person below 18 as a child for sexual-offence protections. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, or POCSO, sexual acts involving a child are handled through a child-protection framework. A minor’s alleged agreement does not operate like an adult’s consent in these cases.

The article says the girl was 16 and that the High Court noted material indicating sexual harassment. It also says she initially alleged that the accused forcibly raped her, although she later did not support the prosecution case. Her age therefore remains important even after the DNA result excluded the accused as the foetus’s father.

The paternity finding answers a biological question, not the legal question of whether a child was sexually abused. The court consequently refused to treat the report as automatically ending the matter. It ordered investigators to examine the alleged assault and identify the responsible person.

How can biological evidence about pregnancy answer who fathered a foetus without, by itself, proving every detail of an alleged sexual assault?

Biological evidence and assault evidence answer different questions. A paternity test asks whether a man’s genetic material matches the foetus’s inherited DNA. An assault investigation asks what happened, who was involved, whether force or coercion occurred, and whether other offences were committed.

In this case, the foetus, placenta tissue, and blood were sent for forensic testing. The report excluded the accused as the biological father. That finding can redirect investigators toward another possible father. It cannot, standing alone, establish whether the pregnancy resulted from consensual activity, force, coercion, or another circumstance.

The High Court recognized this distinction. It ordered police to identify the alleged assailant and the biological father, while noting the girl’s age and indications of sexual harassment. The next investigation must therefore combine DNA results with statements, medical evidence, witness accounts, and other lawful evidence before drawing conclusions about the alleged assault.

Key Facts:

📌 DNA testing excluded the accused as the foetus’s biological father.

📌 Samples went to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar.

📌 The report was dated August 29, 2026.

📌 Paternity testing compares inherited genetic markers.

📌 A test can establish or exclude biological fatherhood.

📌 It does not independently prove the circumstances of conception.

📌 The DNA result did not identify the alleged assailant.